Ron Paul co-sponsors HR 4759 to REPEAL NAFTA!

[Free Moral Agent]

Yes, Ron Paul is opposed to illegal immigration, but at the same time he is also for withdrawing from NAFTA. This would allow the people of Mexico the ability to exert more control over their own economy. This is an extremely important point within the immigration debate, and it is something not even the Democrats are willing to admit because they are just as guilty of selling out the Mexican and American working class in favor of cheap labor as much as the neo-cons and Mexican elites are. Don't kid yourself when they speak of being sympathetic to the plight of immigrants when they are not working to end the subversive trade deals that are causing these people to get up and move in the first place!

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/128522

I see Ron Paul has already signed on to this bill.

Call your congresscritters today and ask them to please co-sponsor this bill.

As a factory worker in Ohio I will tell you first hand that NAFTA has been a total disaster for American small and mid sizes industry.

HR4759 - Full Text at Open Congress.org

111th CONGRESS, 2d Session

H. R. 4759

To provide for the withdrawal of the United States from the North American Free Trade Agreement.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 4, 2010

Mr. TAYLOR (for himself, Mr. JONES, Mr. DEFAZIO, Mr. STUPAK, Mr. ARCURI, Mr. BACA, Mr. BARTLETT, Mr. BRALEY of Iowa, Mr. CAPUANO, Mr. COSTELLO, Mr. FILNER, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. HARE, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. KAGEN, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. KILDEE, Mr. KISSELL, Mr. KUCINICH, Mr. MASSA, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. MICHAUD, Mr. PAUL, Mr. SCHAUER, Mr. VISCLOSKY, Mr. WILSON of Ohio, Ms. WOOLSEY, and Mr. STARK) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To provide for the withdrawal of the United States from the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. WITHDRAWAL OF THE UNITED STATES FROM THE NAFTA.

(a) Withdrawal of Approval- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the approval of the NAFTA by the Congress provided for in section 101(a) of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act shall cease to be effective beginning on the date that is six months after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(b) Notification of Withdrawal- On the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall provide to the Governments of Canada and Mexico written notice of withdrawal of the United States from the NAFTA in accordance with Article 2205 of the NAFTA.

(c) NAFTA Defined- In this section, the term `NAFTA' means the North American Free Trade Agreement entered into between the United States, Canada, and Mexico on December 17, 1992.

 

[FrankRep]

A Case for Repealing NAFTA and Blocking the NAU

A Case for Repealing NAFTA and Blocking the NAU - DVD


The History of NAFTA and the Council on Foreign Relations

YouTube - The History of NAFTA and the Council on Foreign Relations


Could it happen here?
The Real Face of the European Union

The Real Face of the European Union

 

[Kalashnikov Josh]

Whatever gets us out of Mexican affairs and gets the millions of Mexican Nationals here illegally out of our country,is a good idea.

 

[Romantarchist]

I went to the Youtube video for Billy Joel's song "Allentown" (about deindustrialization) and posted an advertisement for this bill, telling people to call their Congressman about it so we can get out of NAFTA. I know I got the target audience right, or at least one of them.

 

[bobbyw24]

Devvy Kidd on this bill

http://buchanan.org/blog/finally-a-bill-to-get-the-us-out-of-nafta-3722

 

[Free Moral Agent]

WTF is happening here!? Why are we fighting amongst ourselves over the immigration issue, when we could all be working to push this bill through. Whatever your stance is on immigration, we could all agree that managed trade deals are bad. Getting out of NAFTA is a boon to everyone! Second to HR 1207 / S 604, I think this bill is the most important piece of legislation currently on the table.

 

[low preference guy]

wtf is happening here!? Why are we fighting amongst ourselves over the immigration issue, when we could all be working to push this bill through. Whatever your stance is on immigration, we could all agree that managed trade deals are bad! this bill is a boon to everyone!

+1776

 

[Free Moral Agent]

HR 4759 is now being monitored at govtrack.us

 

[dr. hfn]

27 co-sponsors!

 

[Working Poor]

I wrote to my representative I hope it helps. I saw that one of the congressmen form my state is already on board

 

[Free Moral Agent]

bump

 

[dannno]

WTF is happening here!? Why are we fighting amongst ourselves over the immigration issue, when we could all be working to push this bill through. Whatever your stance is on immigration, we could all agree that managed trade deals are bad. Getting out of NAFTA is a boon to everyone! Second to HR 1207 / S 604, I think this bill is the most important piece of legislation currently on the table.

Ya I'm pretty sure we can all get behind repealing that POS.

 

[Fox McCloud]

This would allow the people of Mexico the ability to exert more control over their own economy.

I do hope you know that, given the chance, Ron Paul would immediately repeal NAFTA, then in the very same stroke of the pen sign a free-trade agreement with both Canada and Mexico.

He's opposed to NAFTA because it's a managed trade agreement that is, in effect, a customs union.

 

[Free Moral Agent]

There is nothing to sign if you seek free trade! The idea that governments must sign a document in order to affirm free trade between countries is contradictory to the idea itself! The U.S. government should have no business in hindering OR facilitating "free-trade" between private companies.

For instance, what if the government of Mexico wanted to become more protectionist and kicked out all U.S. banana companies (example) operating on their soil after signing your so-called "free-trade" agreement? That is their prerogative, neither arms nor tax dollars should go into ensuring the U.S. be allowed to setup on Mexican soil or be allowed to trade with Mexican companies.

 

[Fox McCloud]

There is nothing to sign if you seek free trade! The idea that governments must sign a document in order to affirm free trade between countries is contradictory to the idea itself! The U.S. government should have no business in hindering OR facilitating "free-trade" between private companies.

For instance, what if the government of Mexico wanted to become more protectionist and kicked out all U.S. banana companies (example) operating on their soil after signing your so-called "free-trade" agreement? That is their prerogative, neither arms nor tax dollars should go into ensuring the U.S. be allowed to setup on Mexican soil or be allowed to trade with Mexican companies.

I think the general idea is that by signing onto the free trade agreement, both countries agree to take a "hands off" approach (ha ha...hahahaha!) that allows businesses to freely exchange goods and services--the net result being that if a country tries to violate the agreement, the other country will withdraw from it in full, which will harm, economically the other country (sadly, it'll harm the first country too).

I still see your point though.

 

[Keller1967]

This will work better than the end the fed bill?

 

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

This will work better than the end the fed bill?

Sadly, we don't know. Given the hurdles HR 1207 went through and then getting stabbed in the back by Bernie Sanders, its possible this will face the same uphill battle.